roversfan99

The MAIN reason why we failed to sustain our promotion push, and why we have also seen dips in results in the following 2 seasons during the second half of the season. Is due to budget cuts from the owners and an inability to really strengthen in January with any sort of reasonable budget. Our squads lack of depth and quality caught up with us, and probably will again this year. The squad is a bit stretched at the moment and the cracks are already starting to apear. There are tactical reasons etc across those seasons that can be questioned, but that is the main reason.

I never said either of those things. Who Eustace wants is obviously most important. Although according to you on the topic of Rothwell, the owners should just sign whoever they want... But if Eustace does want Schlupp or at least thinks he is the best option. That would probably be indicative of a very poor list of players due to budget restrictions. And also, I would disagree with him signing. Just because Eustace picks him doesnt mean I need to agree. And also, my point was it is hard to be enthusiastic when so much money has vanished without reinvestment to be potentially signing players in the bargain basement of limited ability. Because these arent the sort of signings that will either get us into the top 6 or benefit us beyond this season. They may be the best we can afford, and better than nothing.

You are fixated on the Giles situation as if he was a special talent who we wasted. Hes proven since that he isnt particularly good. He was used strangely but I dont think he suited the team anyway, his sole strength is crossing and we had a counter attacking side that didnt have the same attackers that Cardiff did where he had that bit of success. You fixate on people who have left and put all the blame on them, same with Tomasson who you again didnt say a bad word about until he went. I think you are trying to convince yourself that the people who messed up previous seasons have gone, the owners are still here so you deflect blame away and think this is the year everything changes. £20m of sale proceeds has gone, oh well, which QPR striker can we sign on the cheap to fire us to promotion. I dont understand how anything other than this can be correct. Footballing people decide footballing matters. Owners provide money and communicate to CEO.

Yes, full autonomy to the manager and if applicable the director of football. Ie the people specifically employed to deal with football matters. It doesnt require hindsight to see that replacing a want away player with 6 months left and replacing with 2 or 3 long term aasets to improve the side short and long term is a wise move. Although hindsight does prove we made the wrong call.

It could have made us stronger though, short term and long term. Wouldnt have been hard considering how Rothwell chucked in the towel. But either way, the issue is the owners shouldnt block it AND then refuse to provide reasonable funds. We fell away and as has been the case in the 2 seasons since the blame falls on the owners.

Its one of them. I cant personally get excited about which Palace veteran utility man we might sign or which QPR squad player we could sign. Because fundamentally, I know that working under such meagre resources will see us fall away, I know it isnt enough. History backs up that suggestion, the squad is already buckling. And longer term, it leaves us with big issues in the summer. Do I think Schlupp solves one of the problems we have at the moment? No.

You are defending them on this matter then.

It shouldnt be decided to the owners. Thats the issue. Not about the individuals or even the choice made. And it didnt work out. We could have strengthened, added quality in other positions both short and long term. We could have become better and sustained our push for longer. As it was, we kept an unhappy player who stunk the place out for the rest of the season. We then lost him for free and remained in the Championship. How can people defend that, defend these bastard owners, not even at the time but looking back and seeing how it played out. If it was about ambition, keep him AND provide a few million to help to sustain the promotion push.

As ive said, the players we were linked to are an irrelevance to my point. The manager wasnt backed either through the autonomy of selling to buy or with a reasonable transfer budget. That was the primary reason for the extent of our collapse, obviously Mowbray made choices which played a part but its the main reason. A similar thing (not to the same extent) happened in the following 2 seasons, a thin squad dying for reinforcements ran out of steam and suffered a dip in results in the second half of the season. If you want to defend the owners then thats fine, they clearly DIDNT make the right decision hence an unhappy player left for free after stinking the place out in a season where promotion didnt happen. But it happens at other clubs so its ok.

The above is the perfect example of my point, misinformation, speculation used to discredit him purely out of dislike well beyond what he warrants. At the end of the day, he did deserve criticism for his share of how that season finished and we were all glad to see him go. The Reece James stuff is at best speculation regarding tattoos and music. And Wigan werent in our division when we had Giles.

Again, its beside the point that Mowbray had no interest in pushing on.

So you are just picking and choosing which rumours that suit your narrative. The rumoured names are an irrelevance to the point im making. The owners shouldnt be blocking sales, especially when they are unwilling to provide reasonable funds otherwise to push us forwards. And it clearly didnt work. We lost out on £4m, and subsequently the potential to reinvest in longer term assets who would also have improved the quality and depth of the squad which was small. We were left with an unhappy player who massively declined in form before leaving for free.

He did sign players, we got 7. What he says in the media is obviously done to keep people happy.

I dont know. Jed Wallace and Dembele were the 2 linked but either way, its not about the individuals. The owners shouldnt be deciding on such matters. As it was, it didnt work out. What Reading player? The links were Wallace and Dembele but its besides the point. Why are the owners deciding who to keep and who to sell? Especially when we needed reinforcements and selling someone with 6 months on his deal could have generated funds to sign 2 or 3 players. Plus Rothwell was clearly unhappy and didnt perform to the samr levels afterwards. End result, no promotion, and no assets. If they were so insistent on not selling him to a rival, then provide that money on top of keeping him.

Even if the prophet Nixon says so, we dont know if they agree. But either way, it might be a case of we dont have much money, only loans, will Schlupp do? Rather than is this the player youd want if we had a reasonable budget. Might be a case of best of a bad job. I dont get why versatility is so important. We need a winger that can score goals and has some pace and the ability to take players on and make a different in the final third. Hes more of a steady eddie utility player. If we need left back cover aswell, then sign a second player for that. Dont sign someone who can sort of do both but doesnt really help to solve the issues we have with a lack of quality, pace and goals in the final third. If we sign Schlupp to cover 2 positions and Beck gets injured, Schlupp goes to left back. We then have no new winger. Purely as a winger, do you think Schlupp gives us what we are missing? 1. Its not about Gestede's plan. Its all down to the owners and how much money they should be making available. 2. Im not saying that. The manager should have final say. But then equally, if he turns out to not be what we need, he gets the criticism. I dont think Schlupp is what we need. 3. We have made over £40m in sales in the last few years. There should be £15m easily to spend on new permanent additions (well it should have already been spent) but there wont be. Regarding names, havent a clue. Im not a scout. I think Kent could be a useful pick up though. 3 loans would not be acceptable under any circumstances. We shouldnt be scrambling around like this. There is no desire from the owners to grow the footbal club. And crucially, its not a case of spending x amount and thats lost. You then have assets to profit on in the future.

Thats down to the manager though, he should choose and then if it goes well, great, if not then he gets the blame. I agree that short and long term it made sense to sell a player with 6 months on his deal and get a couple of assets for the longer term. As it was, we got the worsr of both worlds.

Then it still wouldnt be what we need and that would be squarely on the owners for again not reinvesting any money at a time of need.

He wasnt going to say "right, now we are up I can get rid of most of these shit players." He didnt "actively decide not to win the league." We went to Charlton and he made a few changes but if I recall we had a number of injuries. I have never seen before that he turned down Archer. Have you got a link to that? He did turn down a striker on loan (wrongly) but that was rumoured to be Liam Delap who went on to have a couple of terrible loans before a half decent one at Hull last season. He was right to kick up a fuss about not being given the autonomy to sell Rothwell.

I dont think Egan Riley is on loan. Im sure they bought him and initialy loaned him out themselves and his emergence this season seems a bit of a surprise.

If we signed 3 loans then we would have 6 so one would always be unable to be even in the squad. The amount of money we have brought in and barely a slither available to reinvest. We clearly wont make the play offs and our squad will have the numerous sticking plasters ripped off and we will be left with a skeletal squad again come the summer. And with no sellable assets to speak of. You HAVE to reinvest some money. That then gives you assets, you can then potentially sell them in the future, reinvest and so forth. Not here. And even then, people still shrug their shoulders. Even if they claim its gone to running costs, reivesting some will potentially lead to further profits on those players in the future.

I dont think he is. We need a winger or 2 with pace and who can offer a goal threat. Obviously thats not easy on our budget but either way Schlupp is IMO not what we need. He has never scored more than 4 league goals in a season (plus he got 1 in the cup) and due to his age his legs are going. Hes more of a utility man, I always thought he was best as a wing back. He might be a steady eddie as a wide man, working hard but we have lots of them already. We need some more attacking threat. Kent would make more sense. Can be inconsistent, questions about attitude and has not played for a bit so it comes with red flags. But hes quick and takes people on, would be permanent and isnt into his 30s, and he has had seasons where he scored a decent amount of goals as a wide man. Venkys will not invest. Its not Waggott and its not even Suhail. Its Venkys. Just because Eustace endorses a signing doesnt automatically make it what we need. Is Schlupp an attacking player who can score a decent amount of goals, and who is going to take people on? No, hes an aging utility man. And if hes signed partly to cover left back, as and when hes needed there, then we are back to square one. Kent I think could potentially give us what we need. If its Schlupp as well, different story. If not, no to Schlupp.

Your logic makes absolutely no sense. It would have been very much in his best interests from a career and financial point of view to get promoted. The problem is, he was here too long so peoples dislike of him grew to unhealthy levels to the point where they start creating nonsensical theories to try and discredit him further.

If he went up and then got sacked, he would have been paid up on a massively increased contract and had a considerable improvement in reputation at Championship level so would have been given further work easily. Every manager is doing it to line their pockets. But the idea that Mowbray wouldnt want promotion is illogical, financially as much as anything.

Makes zero sense. Promotion would have lined those pockets further with a considerable wage increase and probably a new deal.

Versatility doesnt trump whether I think he would be a good signing.